This page is for discussing the Content assessment page. Reviews of pages should be in the relevant WikiProject, the article talk page, or in the assessment page
This page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil
This page is within the scope of the article quality research project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Article quality researchWikipedia:WikiProject Article quality researchTemplate:Quality assessmentArticle quality research
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
A-Class
Hello all,
The A-class requirements are substantially less fleshed-out than the others, and make reference to WikiProject-specific content assessment, which has since been deprecated. I would fix this myself, but am not yet experienced enough on policy to make this change. If someone could take a look and perhaps fix things, that would be great.
JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 09:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject specific content assessment for A-class still exists at the Military History WikiProject (and basically nowhere else). Any way to deal with A-class on a Wikipedia-wide scale needs to work without disturbing the MILHIST process and without requiring any work from non-MILHIST projects. Good luck. —Kusma (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think ultimately that A-class will be removed from the standard scale. There was some talk about creating a project-wide A-class review process but it hasn't happened, and frankly I don't think there is the appetite for it. After B-class, there is GA followed by FA, possibly with a peer review along the way. This seems perfectly adequate in most cases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A-class is the only decent grade we have. FA is no good because it not available due to the one-at-a-time restriction, and GA is just a B with a review. So neither is adequate. Dropping A-class would mean we are abandoning the content assessment concept entirely. If A-class is removed from the standard scale, I will have to recommend that the project drop both GA and FA. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A-class is not available for the vast majority of articles. While you can only nominate one FA at a time, that is far more than the zero A-class nominations you can have at a time if you do not write about military history. —Kusma (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MILHIST is not the only project with A-class, just the largest. I offered to create a global A-class review and will do so; it was deferred so the GA backlog could be dealt with. Hawkeye7(discuss)17:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any other project actively running an A-Class review system (please let me know if you know of one). Looking through Category:Requests for A-Class review I found out that somebody tried to nominate a Highways article for A-Class review half a year ago that has received zero feedback. Everything else seems even older (there are a handful Biography A-Class reviews, all of them a decade ago). Category:A-Class articles is a collection of thousands of redundant empty subcategories. Outside of Military History, there seems to be zero appetite for running another assessment process. People unhappy with the GA process tend to reform the GA process instead of setting up a parallel process. As GA now is definitely better than A-class was 15 years ago, I really don't see the need. —Kusma (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I think Milhist A-class reviews are pretty good and seem useful to article writers, so I don't think we should discourage them. If we wanted to simplify, I'd rather merge stub/start/C/B into just two or three levels. —Kusma (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "one-at-a-time restriction"? There are hundreds (if not thousands) of FA-class articles. They trumpet a different one each day on Main Page, and AFAIK they are not downgraded once tomorrow comes and a different article is Todays Featured. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It now takes about three months for an article to get through FA, limiting an editor to about four articles per year. An article is no longer promoted each day, so FAs are now recycled. Hawkeye7(discuss)17:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are exaggerating slightly. My most recent four nominations took between three weeks and two months. At the most recent WikiCup, more than one participant managed to get three articles promoted within a two-month period. In any case, it would be better to improve FA than to add another process in parallel. —Kusma (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to make the A-class project universal across Wikipedia. I opened my FAC in November and it hasn't closed which I'm quite frustrated about when I want to nominate more. Maybe I'm an oddball since I'm a first-time nominator, but @Hawkeye7 could back me up with his own experience. If A-class allows nominators to push more than one article, that's what I want to see. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 18:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A short while ago, Cewbot went through all of the categories tagged for the WP:Lichen task force, and removed "redundant" parameters, including "class=category", and "class=redirect". As a consequence, 100's of articles are now missing from the "Category" and "Redirect" totals displayed in the assessment progression box (which is the reason we put those parameters there in the first place). Is there any way get get these back in our totals, short of manually putting back in the parameter and opting out of the banner shell template? Esculenta (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
